Mainstream media

Mainstream media (MSM) is mass media that influences a large number of people and is reflective of prevailing currents of thought, influence, or activity.[1] It may be contrasted with alternative media which may contain content discordant with prevailing views.

Large news conglomerates, including newspapers and broadcast media, which underwent successive mergers in the U.S. and elsewhere at an increasing rate beginning in the 1990s, are often referenced by the term. This concentration among generally progressive and sometimes left-wing media owners has raised concerns of a social and political homogenization of viewpoints presented to news consumers. Consequently, the term mainstream media has been widely used in conversation and the blogosphere, often in oppositional, pejorative, or dismissive senses, in discussion of the mass media and media bias. Mainstream media are represented as being part of the cultural consensus also known as The Cathedral or Shadow Party.

Mainstream media publishers generally feel required to observe the rules of political correctness, regardless of whether they are nominally progressive or conservative. This includes a trend of what right-wing opponents call race censorship. In news reports of cases of black-on-white violence by urban youths or non-Asian minorities, the races of the perpetrators and victims are almost never mentioned. Allegedly, such stories have also been minimized or suppressed; particularly ongoing reports of Muslim rape gangs in the United Kingdom in the 2000s and 2010s. In part, this may be because European governments increasingly criminalize such speech. Politically incorrect publishers are also blocked on social media.

Mainstream media reports generally proceed from the implicit bias that different racial groups have the exact same cognitive abilities and inherent personality traits. The only reason different races have different social outcomes is because of past discrimination and oppression. Mainstream media editorials propose various solutions to these problems: either increased social spending, or tax-cuts and regulatory changes. Any other view is considered too controversial to publish.

Contents

Media monopolies

According to left-wing activist Noam Chomsky, media organizations with an elite audience such as CBS News and The New York Times, successful corporations with the assets necessary to engage in original reporting, set the tone for other smaller news organizations which lack resources by creating conversations that cascade down to smaller news organizations using the Associated Press and other means of aggregation. An elite mainstream sets the agenda and smaller organizations parrot it.[1]

The advent of the internet has allowed for a more diverse or alternative viewpoint which may contrast to mainstream media.[2]Lamestream media, a pun based on replacing the word "main" with "lame" in the word "mainstream," is a pejorative alternative term. Sarah Palin has referred to "lamestream media," notably during her participation in the Tea Party Express, in the context of what she perceives as media misrepresentation of the Tea Party movement.[3][4][5]

There may also be some large-scale owners in an industry that are not the causes of monopoly or oligopoly. Clear Channel Communications, especially since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, acquired many radio stations across the United States, and came to own more than 1,200 stations. However, the radio broadcasting industry in the United States and elsewhere can be regarded as oligopolistic regardless of the existence of such a player. Because radio stations are local in reach, each licensed a specific part of spectrum by the FCC in a specific local area, any local market is served by a limited number of stations. In most countries, this system of licensing makes many markets local oligopolies. The similar market structure exists for television broadcasting, cable systems and newspaper industries, all of which are characterized by the existence of large-scale owners. Concentration of ownership is often found in these industries.

In the United States, data on ownership and market share of media companies is not held in the public domain.

Recent media mergers in the United States

Over time the amount of media merging has increased and the amount of media outlets have increased. That translates to fewer companies owning more media outlets, increasing the concentration of ownership. In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by fifty companies; today, 90% is controlled by just six companies.[7]

Although Viacom and CBS Corporation have been separate companies since 2006, they are both partially owned subsidiaries of the private National Amusements company, headed by Sumner Redstone. As such, Paramount Home Entertainment handles DVD/Blu-ray distribution for most of the CBS Corporation library.

American public distrust in the media

A 2012 Gallup poll found that Americans' distrust in the media had hit a new high, with 60% saying they had little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust had increased since the previous few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in the years before 2004.[11]

Throughout 2016, Google and Facebook had been targeted to disperse a substantial amount of fake news, with the aim, it was claimed, of confusing Americans about various topics. Following the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election and during the campaign, Americans who supported Hillary Clinton claimed she was victimized by fake news about the election on the two websites. It was said that Facebook has been targeted in order to sway the American people during the electoral cycle, although the chief executive of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg stated that "Facebook did not have a role in the recent presidential campaign". It was also reported that the insurmountable number of "fake news" posts about the election had increased the number of Americans distrusting the media.[12]